by Steve | Nov 19, 2021 | In the News
Good News file photo.
By Thomas Lambrecht —
I recently read a diagnosis that said many of the ills in today’s society can be traced to the blurring or ignoring of boundaries. That same diagnosis can serve to describe much of what ails The United Methodist Church.
Boundaries in Doctrine
John Wesley was clear from the beginning that clear boundaries were needed in order to sustain the movement of the Spirit that became Methodism. Those boundaries begin with a clear understanding of what we believe and proclaim. The purpose of our doctrinal standards (Articles of Religion, Confession of Faith, Wesley’s Sermons and Notes) is to define the boundaries of our doctrine.
A primary shortcoming of The United Methodist Church is that our doctrinal standards have functioned mostly as “guidelines” that can be reinterpreted or ignored at will. During United Methodism’s recent history, we have had clergy — and a couple of outspoken bishops — teach such beliefs as: Jesus is not the unique Son of God, that he did not rise bodily from the dead, or that he was imperfect in knowledge and teaching. In instances like these, the boundaries of our faith are not functioning properly. When the clear teachings of Scripture can be ignored or interpreted away, the boundaries of our faith are not functioning properly.
The proposed Global Methodist Church (in formation) sets out clear doctrinal boundaries that are not different from what we currently have in the UM Church. What is different is a commitment to hold one another accountable to maintain and teach the doctrines we say we believe. That commitment makes those boundaries meaningful and clear.
Boundaries in Behavior
It is often overlooked that the General Rules (do no harm, do good, and attend upon the ordinances of God) are also part of our doctrinal standards. It was expected that Methodists would not only believe and teach certain things, but that they would behave in certain ways. The General Rules are very specific in giving pertinent examples of the general admonitions – forbidding things like cussing, working on the Sabbath, drunkenness, slave-holding, fighting, cheating others, etc. They also promote specific goods we are to do, such as giving food to the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting or helping those who are sick or in prison, instructing others in the faith, patronizing Christian businesses, and being diligent and frugal.
Christians in general, and United Methodist in particular, have fallen away from living up to the standards of Christian conduct set forth in our General Rules. It does not help when the church has established specific rules that are then ignored or disobeyed, whether it be the injunctions against rebaptism or same-sex marriage.
Our society today has a problem with boundaries around the truth – lying, disinformation, and slander are rampant. We also have a problem with sexual boundaries. Many consider the very idea that sex is to be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman to be quaint and outmoded. Yet, our society has reaped the consequences of sexual libertinism in broken homes, damaged children, sky-high abortion numbers, a flourishing pornography industry leading to sex trafficking, the fact that a high percentage of children are born to parents who are not married, and the list goes on.
The proposed Global Methodist Church believes we should have clear boundaries for what constitutes Christian behavior. More importantly, the GM Church will seek to foster an atmosphere of personal accountability and growth in holiness. Living like Jesus is not an instant transformation at the time of salvation, but a process of growing in grace and obedience throughout a lifetime. Participation in discipleship groups will be highly encouraged. Such groups form the foundation of personal growth by giving support to believers on the journey, taking personal sin seriously, offering grace and forgiveness where needed, and lifting up the goal of Christlikeness toward which we all strive. As Wesley said, there is no such thing as “solitary believers.” We need each other for support, encouragement, and accountability to become all that God wants us to be.
Boundaries of Polity
The primary reason for separation in the UM Church is because the way the church is organized is no longer working. Actions of General Conference and Judicial Council rulings are widely ignored. The provisions of the Book of Discipline have been relegated to “guidelines” to be followed when convenient or in a person’s interest in doing so, but otherwise ignored. The same bishops can ignore clergy accountability when they disagree with it, while at the same time punitively holding some local churches to follow the smallest detail of the Discipline.
The crossing of some boundaries in church polity has diminished all such boundaries. Why should I obey this provision of the Discipline that I disagree with or is inconvenient for me, when the bishop lets other provisions go unenforced? The church is devolving into a chaotic mess of individualism, undermining the “rule of law” and elevating the rule of individuals in positions of authority. This situation saps the strength of the church in being unable to muster collective effort toward the common goal of evangelizing the world. The strength of Methodist connectionalism is being steadily eroded by the acid of disregarding the boundaries of our polity.
The proposed GM Church is committed to a healthy, functional way of organizing itself. Rather than creating various general agency fiefdoms, each going in its own direction, there will be greater centralization and directional unity in how it functions. The GM Church pairs lower connectional giving based on a fair and equal percentage of church income with the expectation that those percentages will be paid. Local churches will be expected to abide by the Doctrines and Discipline and maintain and teach GM doctrine, behavior, and polity.
Boundaries and Centered Sets
Popular today is the idea that one can replace boundaries with the idea of a “centered set.” Boundaries set the outer perimeter of an organization’s identity. A centered set focuses on a central attraction that keeps people together without the need for boundaries. For Christians, this might mean that holding up Jesus as our central attraction and our goal to be like him could mean that we do not need boundaries to determine who is a Christian or how we are progressing on the journey of holiness.
There are elements of wisdom in this idea. But without a sufficient definition of the center, the whole idea falls apart. What does it mean to hold up Jesus as the center? Who is Jesus: miracle worker, wise teacher, or the Son of the living God? Was Jesus’ purpose primarily to show us a better way to live or to provide atonement for our sins on the cross and bring us eternal salvation? How does Jesus expect us to live?
Unless these questions and many more are answered with enough definition, the central attraction is so amorphous that it can mean anything to anyone. Some could be attracted to Jesus the wise teacher, while others to the Son of God. When those looking for the Son of God find out that the church they are in looks at him only as a wise teacher, they become frustrated at the bait and switch and become disillusioned with the church.
Defining the center to which we are to be attracted looks a lot like another set of boundaries. We are to be attracted to this, but not that. Jesus expects this, but not that. The notion of centered sets seems attractive, but it does not rescue us from doing the hard work of defining the faith we hold in common. The less defined the center, the less attractive it will be. (Could that be one reason why many middle-of-the-road United Methodist congregations are not attracting new members? There is little clear definition of what the church stands for and what it wants its members to believe and do.)
A Narrative for the Continuing United Methodist Church
One of my disappointments with the document recently produced by the Council of Bishops describing their hopes for The United Methodist Church after separation is its lack of clarity. Amid lots of good and wholesome language, there is no clear idea of what the UM Church stands for and believes. (Perhaps that is not the intention of the document and there will be other clarifying statements in the future.)
The primary message of the Narrative is that the UM Church is for everybody, all are welcome, and there is no clear description of what it means to be United Methodist. One could be “liberal, evangelical, progressive, traditionalist, middle of the road, conservative, centrist, or something else.” The document speaks of being “united in the essentials,” but begs the question of what those essentials are. Does whoever is in power at a given time define what the essentials are? Will it change from time to time and place to place? Is the priority of Scripture an essential? Is same-sex marriage an essential?
The document speaks of being “deeply rooted in the Doctrinal Standards of the UMC.” How will this be different from the current situation described above, where the standards are able to be redefined in almost infinite ways?
Regionalization
The Christmas Covenant and other proposals that would regionalize UM structure would only further confuse and exacerbate the lack of clear definition or boundaries. Under these proposals, there would be one set of practices in one region, with different practices in another region. What it means to be United Methodist in Germany may well be very different from what it means in Kenya or in Ohio or in California. What happens when people who are attracted to one understanding of Methodism in Germany have to work together with people who have a much different understanding of Methodism from Kenya or the U.S.? They may have fundamental disagreements about what it means to be United Methodist, apart from the idea that anyone and everyone can be United Methodist.
There will be clear choices on the other side of General Conference, if the Protocol for Separation passes. Post-separation, continuing United Methodism may well aspire to be a “big-tent” church with room for all and little clear definition of identity – more of what we have today. At the same time, the Global Methodist Church will be clear in its definition of its identity, beliefs, and practices, maintaining accountability to that definition.
The GM Church will define what its essentials are. It will also allow for flexibility where needed in different contexts to allow for the greatest effectiveness and fruitfulness. But again, there will be clarity about what is needful for all to follow and what matters are able to be flexible (contrary to the current situation in the UM Church).
We have all seen during the pandemic how important clear and consistent communication is and a clear understanding of what the boundaries are. Over the past, that clarity has been missing from the UM Church and, based on what has been publicly shared so far, there is little prospect of clarity down the road. Those looking for clarity and consistency will find it in the Global Methodist Church (in formation). While it will not be perfect in this regard, the GM Church aims to provide a clear and consistent witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior of the world, and Lord of all and a clear and consistent pathway of transformation by the Holy Spirit for all who would be Christ’s disciples.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyman and the vice president of Good News.
by Steve | Nov 12, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
A postage stamp was issued on May 28, 1948, to honor four chaplains who sacrificed their lives in the sinking of the U.S.A.T. Dorchester. The chaplains —George L. Fox, Clark V. Poling, John P. Washington, and Alexander D. Goode — are pictured above the sinking ship.
By Steve Beard –
Some of the most emotional moments broadcast on television are when deployed military parents return unexpectedly to surprise their kids coming home from school, during a musical recital, or at a graduation. Sheer joy boils over and you can almost feel the tight squeeze of the bear hugs. Tears of happiness cascade down the faces of the unexpected with unreserved elation. In a perfect world, those moments would last forever.
A few years ago, I joined my family at the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego to honor my grandfather, Harold L. DuVal, a veteran of World War II. For the families gathered at the site near the Pacific Ocean, it is a breathtaking experience. Those leaving flowers or touching plaques want to make sure that their loved ones are not forgotten. Walking the grounds gives a good opportunity to reflect on the service and sacrifice of men and women in uniform.
While Memorial Day in May is specially designated to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice during military service, Veterans Day in November is an opportunity to show gratitude for all current and former members of the Armed Forces.
February 3 is designated as a special day to honor four specific heroes from World War II (1939-1945) and recognize their acts of self-sacrifice during a fateful night off the coast of Greenland in an area the Navy dubbed as Torpedo Alley – a treacherous stretch of the North Atlantic filled with Nazi submarines. The U.S. Army transport ship U.S.A.T. Dorchester was a cruise ship that had been repurposed to serve during wartime. It carried more than 900 military personnel, merchant marines, and civilians.
At one o’clock in the morning on February 3, 1943, a German torpedo tore a massive hole in the ship. The ship went completely dark. Sleeping soldiers woke up in a whirl of disorientation. Survivor Michael Warish described the scene in No Greater Glory: “The lights went out, and steam pipes broke, and there was screaming. Then the bunks, three to five decks high, went down like a deck of cards. Shortly after, there was a very strong odor of gunpowder and of ammonia from the refrigeration system.”
Those who were awake scrambled to upper levels to reach a lifeboat. In Bloodstained Sea, survivor Walter A. Boeckholt remembered, “I was thrown against the ceiling and then landed on the floor. By the time I was recovering my senses, the ship was already tilting. I grabbed for the door, which hadn’t jammed as of yet, and walked out on deck, realizing I didn’t have my life preserver, I went back into the room to get it. As I returned to the deck, they all seemed to be yelling, crying, and trying to get to their lifeboats. Most of the lifeboats were frozen solid or broken in the process of trying to get them loose.”
On board were four chaplains, all lieutenants. Only a few months previous, the Rev. George L. Fox (Methodist), Rabbi Alexander D. Goode (Jewish), Father John P. Washington (Roman Catholic), and the Rev. Clark V. Poling (Reformed Church in America) had become friends and ministerial colleagues during military chaplaincy training.
In the whirlwind of panic on the ship, the four chaplains from divergent faith traditions handed out life vests to the terrified young men. Refusing to take places on the lifeboats, they helped as many soldiers as they could to escape the sinking ship. As the supply of life vests ran out, each of the chaplains gave their own to four soldiers who were without.
Tragically, only two of the fourteen lifeboats were successfully deployed. The Dorchester sank in less than 20 minutes.
Witnesses report that the chaplains said prayers and sang hymns as they linked arms as the ship was sinking. “When she rolled, all I could see was the keel up there,” recalled Dorchester survivor James Eardley. “We saw the four chaplains standing arm-in-arm … like they were looking up to heaven, you might say. Then the boat took a nosedive. It went right down, and they went with it.”
Another survivor had a similar recollection. “As I swam away from the ship, I looked back. The flares had lighted everything,” engineer Grady Clark testified. “The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the four chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could. I did not see them again. They themselves did not have a chance without their life jackets.”
Of the 902 passengers, only 230 survived.
There is no way to adequately measure what the efforts and sacrifices of the four chaplains meant on that night. Pfc. John Ladd, a survivor, said that seeing their selfless actions was “the finest thing I have seen or hope to see this side of heaven.” For nearly eight decades, the story has been a symbol of counterintuitive sacrifice, faith-based cooperation, and remarkable love.
In 1944, the U.S. government posthumously awarded each chaplain the Distinguished Service Cross and a Purple Heart. In 1948, a postage stamp was released in their honor. In 1960, the U.S. Congress authorized the unique creation of the Four Chaplains’ Medal and posthumously awarded it to the four men.
In 1988, a unanimous Act of Congress established February 3 as an annual “Four Chaplains Day.” There are numerous stained glass memorials, plaques, paintings, and sculptures to their courageous act found around the nation and at places such as the Pentagon and West Point.
One of the deceased clergymen was the Rev. George L. Fox – the Methodist chaplain. Prior to the fateful night, he had valiantly served in World War I. As an Army ambulance driver, he gave his gas mask to a wounded French soldier. In addition to other commendations, Fox was honored with the French Croix de Guerre, or Cross of War. After the war, Fox became a Methodist minister. Despite having lung damage from World War I, Fox volunteered for service again after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. “I have to go,” he told his wife. “I know what those boys are up against.” For Fox and his fellow chaplains, devotion to God manifested itself as selfless service to those in need.
Floating in the freezing Arctic water after the explosion on the Dorchester, Pvt. William B. Bednar heard “men crying, pleading, praying. I could also hear the chaplains preaching courage. Their voices were the only thing that kept me going.”
“To take off your life preserver, it meant you gave up your life,” said survivor Benjamin Epstein in the Pioneer Press. “You would have no chance of surviving. They knew they were finished. But they gave it away. Consider that. Over the years I’ve asked myself this question a thousand times. Could I do it? No, I don’t think I could do it. Just consider what an act of heroism they performed.”
Amazing grace for survivors. Through the efforts of David Fox, the nephew of the Methodist chaplain on the Dorchester, the memory of the story of the Four Chaplains has been preserved. In 1996, Fox rented a video camera and attempted to interview as many Dorchester survivors as possible. He ended up meeting 20 of the 28 known survivors. According to Fox, the first sergeant of the ship, Michael Warish, reported that the four chaplains had a remarkable comradery: “These men were always together.”
“Remember, this was 1943. Protestants didn’t talk to Catholics back then, let alone either of them talk to a Jew,” Fox told America in WWII. “And yet here they were, always together, and they loved each other. The men said it didn’t matter which service they went to, that the chaplains always made them feel welcome and cared for. They were remarkable for 1943, way ahead of their time.”
Through contacts in Germany, Fox also reached out to the three remaining survivors of the German submarine U-223 that had fired the torpedo. “When I was interviewing the U-boat crew, they just would cry,” Fox recalled. “The men had never told their families this story. They realized that when they hit that ship, there were men dying. They cheered the first moment, and then it just got very silent, and they felt terrible after that. These were Germans – they were not Nazis – young boys, 17, 18, 19 years old, forced to do it or they would have been shot, pretty much like in the movie Das Boot. The U-boat crews did what they had to do, but they didn’t like it very much.”
Through a notable reconciliation effort by Fox and the Immortal Chaplains Foundation in 2000, survivors of the Dorchester met with the surviving crew of the German submarine. The men from U-223 had also known loss. The submarine was sunk a year after the Dorchester attack.
Remarkably, two surviving German veterans arrived in Washington D.C. for a 2000 memorial ceremony and they wept openly after visiting the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The small group of both the American and German survivors were invited to the nearby home of Theresa Goode Kaplan, the then 88-year-old widow of Rabbi Alexander D. Goode who had died on the Dorchester.
“She shook the Germans’ hands, and accepted their expressions of regret for her husband and for her suffering,” reported The New Yorker. “When the room was silent, Gerhard Buske (U-223’s executive officer), produced a harmonica, raised his hands to his mouth, and blew out a slow, warbling rendition of ‘Amazing Grace.’ Everyone clapped. Then the room lapsed back into silence.”
Buske returned to the United States in 2003 to speak at a ceremony on the sixtieth anniversary of the Dorchester’s sinking. “We the sailors of U-223 regret the deep sorrows and pains caused by the torpedo,” he said. “Wives lost their husbands, parents their sons, and children waited for their fathers in vain. I once more ask forgiveness, as we had to fight for our country, as your soldiers had to do for theirs.”
Buske concluded by imploring the gathering to follow the example of the four valiant chaplains. “We ought to love when others hate; we ought to forgive when others are violent,” he said. “I wish that we can say the truth to correct errors; we can bring faith where doubt threatens; we can awaken hope where despair exists; we can light up a light where darkness reigns; that we can bring joy where sorrows dominate.”
by Steve | Nov 5, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.
By Thomas Lambrecht
Since the 2016 General Conference, The United Methodist Church has been trying to find a way to resolve our differences that can be supported by a majority of the denomination. The Commission on a Way Forward was set up to bring recommendations to a special General Conference in 2019. Unfortunately, the Commission was not allowed to consider all options, but was limited to what the Council of Bishops thought would keep us “together” as a church.
At the 2019 General Conference, progressives and centrists put all their eggs in the “One Church Plan” basket. They believed the best or only way forward was to allow annual conferences and clergy to have autonomy to figure out whether or not to broaden the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and ordain openly gay clergy. Traditionalists relied on maintaining the church’s long-standing conception of Scripture, defining marriage as between one man and one woman and restricting non-celibate gays from ordination.
The traditionalist approach won the most votes at the 2019 General Conference by a slim majority. Progressives and centrists decided that they could not live with a traditionalist way forward. Traditionalists had already stated they could not live with a “One Church” way forward. It was this impasse that began to convince folks that separation was the only way forward.
In the months following General Conference, the question was asked whether a way could be found to bring about separation in a gracious, Christ-honoring way, rather than resort to spending millions of dollars on court battles over church property. This led to various groups trying to negotiate plans of separation that would be acceptable to many persons across the theological spectrum. Passing a plan of separation by a slim majority would not be helpful if many in the church refused to honor it.
Eventually, representatives of all the major advocacy groups (left, right, and center) agreed on the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. Crucially, this proposal also had support from leaders (mainly bishops) outside the U.S. Since then, it has been endorsed by five annual conferences, including very progressive and very traditional ones, ranging from 64 percent to 86 percent in favor. This is the kind of broad support that could lead to a successful implementation of a gracious separation.
General Conference Postponed
The Protocol was headed for likely adoption at the May 2020 General Conference, until Covid-19 hit. The postponement of the conference, first to August 2021 and then to August 2022, has caused some to think that the Protocol has “timed out.” That for some reason, it no longer can be considered.
Of course, this is not true. The Protocol was validly submitted by the Sierra Leone, Michigan, and Zambia Annual Conferences prior to the deadline, and it is to be considered by the delegates at the General Conference, whenever it meets.
The other myth floating around is that “conditions have changed” since the pandemic and therefore the provisions of the Protocol need to be reconsidered. I wrote on this question last week.
If anything, over the last two years, the need for the Protocol has become even more clear, with some annual conferences ordaining multiple non-celibate lesbians and gays as clergy. The divergence of practices from one annual conference to another and the divergence of theology regarding the inspiration and authority of the Bible mean that we cannot fruitfully live together in one church body.
This has not stopped a few church leaders from trying to find another way forward that does not involve separation or that keeps as many local churches as possible bound within the UM Church. Some leaders are still in denial about how deep the divide is within our church. Other leaders are in panic mode because any kind of broad separation will impact the UM Church institution in dramatic ways. Preferring to try to hold as many churches within the denomination as possible, by whatever means necessary, some leaders do not favor allowing separation at all. Such a short-sighted, institutional preservation approach will only make the conflict worse and cause more harm to the church.
Connectional Conference Revived
Some leaders proposed that the jurisdictions should be abolished and that every region of the church should have two different conferences – one traditionalist and one centrist/progressive. Everyone would still be United Methodist, but the different theological conferences could operate under different rules according to their consciences.
This approach would not ultimately be acceptable to most traditionalists because it would leave us yoked as part of a denomination that affirmed what we believe to be contrary to the teaching of Scripture. It would also confuse the identity of what it means to be United Methodist.
Most progressives could not accept this approach because it would permit parts of the UM Church to practice what they call discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons. The need to “correct” the “injustice” practiced by traditionalists trumps any desire for a papered-over unity in the denomination.
This Connectional Conference Plan redo has almost no support from General Conference delegates.
Christmas Covenant
About the same time that the Protocol became public, another proposal, called the Christmas Covenant, also came to light. The Christmas Covenant would set up each different region of the church (U.S., Africa, Europe, the Philippines) as its own separate conference, each able to operate by its own set of rules.
I have analyzed the shortcomings of the Christmas Covenant before. It does not solve the theological impasse because every region – and notably the U.S. – would have a significant number of both traditionalists and progressives. The fight would continue at a regional level, and it would be set up for progressives to prevail in the U.S. region of the church.
The Christmas Covenant may very well be how the post-separation United Methodist Church would organize itself. But it is not a substitute for the Protocol. Some form of separation is still needed to resolve the conflict.
Both the Connectional Conference redo and the Christmas Covenant also require two-thirds votes in favor at both the General Conference and all the annual conferences. (The Protocol does not.) This makes it even less likely for either to pass General Conference while traditionalists remain in the church.
Non-Legislative Solutions
One avenue for separation was adopted by the 2019 General Conference. That is the Par. 2553 disaffiliation. While the cost for this option has come down for churches in most annual conferences, it still remains high. While a few churches have taken this route, many local churches are unable to afford the cost, making it not a viable way for most churches that would like to move to the Global Methodist Church to do so.
Another option for separation has recently surfaced, which is to use Par. 2548.2 as a way to allow local churches to leave the denomination to unite with another denomination. This could be a viable way forward for some, especially if General Conference is unable to meet as scheduled. It would require a two-thirds vote by the local church and approval by the bishop, Cabinet, district board of building and location, and the annual conference. So there are a lot of hoops to jump through.
The terms for this 2548.2 separation would be set by each annual conference. Negotiations are underway to see if a standard set of terms can be agreed to that would allow churches across the connection to move to the GM Church on equal terms without waiting for General Conference to enact the Protocol. However, each bishop and each annual conference would have the choice of whether or not to utilize this paragraph and the standard terms. It is unlikely that all bishops and annual conferences would embrace this pathway, leaving many local churches still stuck in a UM Church that they no longer can support. This approach would also not explicitly allow annual conferences to move to the GM Church, which could jeopardize the continued viability of some annual conferences if many of their churches depart. Central conferences and annual conferences outside the U.S. could not use this avenue to move to the GM Church because 2548.2 does not provide for conferences to take that action.
The 2548.2 separation would be helpful for local churches that are in a desperate situation in their annual conferences. Perhaps they experience hostility from their bishop or superintendent. Or perhaps many of their members are ready to leave the local church if it does not immediately take action. In these kinds of situations, 2548.2 could relieve the pressure on individual churches and clergy. For the reasons given above, however, it would not be a broad scale way to resolve the UM Church’s impasse.
Neither the 2553 nor the 2548.2 approaches would eliminate the need to pass the Protocol. For full and fair separation to take place, the Protocol is the only avenue before the delegates to achieve a gracious result.
A Call to Grace
Just in the last few days, another statement has been issued by centrist and progressive leaders calling upon the church to facilitate separation. They say, “The season for waiting on General Conference legislative solutions as the only way forward has passed. We recognize that continued delay in making decisions about the future of The United Methodist Church hurts our mission and is especially harmful to our central conference and LGBTQIA+ siblings who are caught up in this conflict.”
We would strongly support several of their proposals:
- “We call the church to a pastoral response to the anxiety generated by having to delay decisions that impact peoples’ lives and ministries.
- “We call on bishops and annual conferences to develop resources to assist local churches in discerning their future, including resources on how to have difficult conversations in ways that reduce harm.
- “Honoring the expressed desire of some churches and church leaders to leave The United Methodist Church and participate in other denominations, we call bishops and annual conferences to use existing disciplinary authority to find grace-filled ways for these leaders and churches to follow their call now, allowing them to take their church property with them where appropriate.”
Unfortunately, the provisions in the Discipline allowing local churches to withdraw are inadequate to provide for a truly viable separation for all the churches and annual conferences that want to do so. Central conferences and annual conferences outside the U.S. could not avail themselves of the opportunity to separate, as it is not specifically provided for in the Discipline. Again, using one of the non-legislative ways forward is no substitute for the Protocol.
We strongly disagree with the Call to Grace assessment that, “Given the safety considerations that result from this [Covid] tragedy, it appears likely that the General Conference, scheduled for August-September 2022, may be postponed again.” The Commission on the General Conference is the only group that can make that decision, and they are currently operating under the assumption that General Conference will be held as scheduled. Any change in that position will be decided by that Commission in the spring. With the U.S. opening its borders to vaccinated persons and the steadily increasing supply of vaccines for non-U.S. countries, it appears feasible for delegates to travel to the U.S. for the conference. We continue to believe that an in-person General Conference is possible, and that a distributed General Conference would also be possible in the event that everyone meeting in the U.S. becomes impossible. What it will take is the will on the part of our leaders to make it happen.
What the Call to Grace and all the “other ways forward” show is that leaders across the spectrum long for this impasse to be resolved in a grace-filled way. Their statement says, “Those who have decided to remain in The United Methodist Church wish to begin doing the work now of envisioning the future UMC. To be able to do that requires the ability to graciously release others to their own future.” This works both ways, and we heartily agree.
by Steve | Nov 3, 2021 | Uncategorized
Map of United Methodist Jurisdictions and Annual Conferences in the United States of America. Photo Courtesy of the United Methodist News Service.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
A few weeks ago, the Rev. Adam Hamilton was interviewed by UM News Service on his thoughts about the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation. He said, “Generally, the idea of allowing people to graciously exit with their buildings, I think almost everybody has agreed to that.” Hamilton notes this is a significant change from five years ago, when very few were in favor of allowing denominational exit. While he notes that anything can happen at General Conference, he believes this idea would have broad support.
At the same time, Hamilton reports that some have raised “questions” about certain provisions of the Protocol. Some question the feasibility of allocating $25 million to the new proposed Global Methodist Church. Others question the ability of an annual conference to vote to withdraw from the UM Church or would like to see the percentage of that vote raised from 57 percent to two-thirds. In this article, I would like to address the thinking behind these particular provisions.
Annual Conference Departure
The Protocol provides that an annual conference may vote to withdraw from the UM Church and align with another Methodist denomination formed under the Protocol based on a vote of 57 percent in favor. This was the very last provision of the Protocol that was agreed upon, and failure to agree on this proposal would have scuttled the whole deal. The 57 percent was a compromise between progressives and centrists, who wanted a two-thirds vote, and traditionalists, who wanted a simple majority.
The idea of an annual conference decision on alignment actually came from the Commission on a Way Forward. The Connectional Conference Plan provided for two conferences within United Methodism, one traditionalist and one progressive/centrist. Annual conferences could vote to align with one or the other, carrying all their local churches with them into that alignment (unless the local church disagreed and took steps to align differently).
This same model was used in the Indianapolis Plan and later in the Protocol, so it is an idea that was broadly accepted across the ideological spectrum.
The reason for having an annual conference vote is to respond to the plea the Commission received from many clergy: “Don’t make my local church vote.” If the annual conference votes on alignment and the local church agrees with the annual conference decision, there would be no need for the local church to vote, thus avoiding the potential divisiveness a local vote might precipitate. Those who do not want annual conferences to be able to withdraw would be mandating a vote by all local churches in that annual conference that wanted to withdraw. Allowing an annual conference to withdraw would minimize the number of congregational votes in that annual conference.
Part of the “grace” alluded to in the name of the Protocol is the idea that all groups want any denominations that emerge under the Protocol, as well as the post-separation United Methodist Church, to be as strong and vibrant as possible, set up to succeed, rather than fail. Not allowing an annual conference to withdraw could cause that annual conference to become non-viable as it remains in the post-seperation UM Church. If a significant percentage of an annual conference’s congregations withdraw to join a new denomination, it would leave that annual conference unable to continue functioning, and it would probably be folded into a nearby annual conference, losing its identity.
For instance, the Northwest Texas Annual Conference recently voted by about an 80 percent margin to endorse the Protocol and indicate that it would vote to withdraw and join the Global Methodist Church if the Protocol passed General Conference. If the NWTX Conference were not allowed to withdraw, it could lose more than half its congregations (perhaps as many as 80 percent) to the GM Church. The congregations that would be left would almost certainly not be able to maintain a viable annual conference in the UM Church. The remaining congregations would undoubtedly be reassigned to a nearby annual conference, defeating the whole purpose of not allowing an annual conference to withdraw. Such an outcome helps neither the UM Church nor the GM Church and does not create strong and viable entities to continue ministry and mission in a geographical area.
The question of what percentage vote would be required for an annual conference to withdraw is a sticky one. Those who argue for a two-thirds majority vote say that any major decision by a unit of the church ought to be made by a supermajority vote. Anything less than a supermajority could mean that a church moves forward without the full support of its members, resulting in an adverse outcome.
On the other hand, those arguing for a simple majority vote say that we live in a democratic society, where people are used to accepting the will of the majority. For a small, one-third minority of the church to block the will of the majority could cause major disruption in the church and resentment by those in the majority. (This happened to a large congregation in Houston whose recent attempt to leave the Presbyterian Church fell just a few votes short of the required two-thirds.)
That is why the compromise of 57 percent seems to fit the bill. It is greater than a simple majority, assuring that the decision by an annual conference to withdraw has solid support in the conference. Yet it is not so high as to allow a small minority to block the will of the strong majority. As with many of the terms of the Protocol, this compromise holds in delicate balance competing values. Any attempt to move the percentage one way or the other would upset the delicate balance and potentially damage the entire deal worked out by the various groups.
Some traditionalists perceive attempts to change the percentage or to disallow annual conference withdrawal as an attempt to coerce churches to stay in the UM Church. Any church should be made up of a coalition of the willing, not a coalition of the coerced. One value underlying the Protocol was to provide the fairest and most straightforward way for local churches and annual and central conferences to align with those with whom they desire to identify. Closing the door on some of those pathways undermines the basic values espoused by the Protocol.
Attempts to change the provision allowing annual conferences to withdraw also smacks of a double standard. In the aftermath of the 2019 General Conference, 28 U.S. annual conferences voted not to abide by the recent changes in the Book of Discipline. Annual conferences in the Western Jurisdiction and Denmark began exploring the option of disaffiliating from the UM Church. But now that it is traditionalist annual conferences that would be withdrawing, some want to make it harder or even impossible for that to happen. A good rule of thumb is to treat others as one would like to be treated. If the ability of an annual conference to withdraw from a church that it can no longer support is fair for some, it is right for others with a different perspective.
What about the money?
The other issue raised is whether in Hamilton’s words “the resources are there” for the UM Church to pay out the $25 million to the new denomination. “Does this make sense today like it did before? And for some people it didn’t make sense even then.”
Some consider the $25 million as a subsidy by the UM Church to the new denomination. But the participants in the Protocol saw it as a fair way to allocate the resources that all United Methodists – including traditionalists – have contributed to the church over the past 200-plus years. The amount was not calculated based on the current income of the UM Church, but on unrestricted liquid assets available at the end of 2018, which amounted to $120 million. Of that amount, one-third ($40 million) was to go to the new denominations formed under the Protocol. Traditionalists agreed to contribute one-third of their share ($13 million) to maintain the ethnic ministries and Africa University at their current levels. That left $25 million for the traditionalist denomination and $2 million for a potential progressive denomination.
To take away the $25 million is to say that traditionalists have contributed nothing to the church over the decades. Whereas, in fact, traditionalists have been strong supporters of the mission of the church and contributed to the assets that the church has built up over the years. Allocating $25 million is only a recognition of that fact. It would also allow the new denomination to support ministry in Africa, the Philippines, and Eastern Europe where parts of the church indicate their intent to join the GM Church.
To be fair, if the unrestricted liquid reserves of the UM Church have been significantly reduced by the end of 2021, that is something worth reexamining. On the other hand, perhaps the reserves have increased, and the amount should be greater than $25 million. All traditionalists seek is to be treated fairly and with respect.
In the final analysis, these questions are about grace and preserving the possibility of future reconciliation – perhaps not reunion, but at least the possibility of cooperating together in ministries of mutual interest. We can release and bless one another as we go our separate ways. Or we can fight for every last nickel we think we are owed, creating further animosity between different parts of the Body of Christ. A return to conflict was what the Protocol was designed to avoid. We have the chance to show the world a different, more Christlike way to resolve our differences and bring honor to the name of Christ.
by Steve | Oct 25, 2021 | In the News
Photo Courtesy of Shutterstock.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
As might be expected, the proposed adoption of the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation by the 2022 General Conference has provoked anxiety among clergy wanting to understand its implications for their future service in the church. This article aims to bring clarity to the multiple options clergy will face if the Protocol is adopted.
Clergy Remaining in The United Methodist Church
Clergy who desire to remain within the UM Church may do so. If the clergy person’s annual conference also remains in the UM Church, the clergy person would automatically remain UM.
If the clergy person’s annual conference votes to realign with the Global Methodist Church or another Methodist denomination formed under the Protocol, the clergy person would need to notify their district superintendent they want to remain United Methodist. Such clergy would then be reassigned to a different annual conference within the UM Church that covers the same geographic area as the separating annual conference. (The UM Church will have to redraw annual conference boundaries and/or create new annual conferences where existing annual conferences separate.)
If the remaining clergy person’s local church also desires to remain in the UM Church, that clergy person’s appointment could continue uninterrupted. Both the local church and the clergy person would remain in a continuing UM annual conference or pass into a new or different annual conference (if the current annual conference separates).
If the remaining clergy person’s local church separates from the UM Church to align with the Global Methodist Church or a different denomination, there would be two options:
1) The clergy person could be reappointed to a different congregation that desires to remain United Methodist, either in the current geographical area or (by transfer) in another annual conference.
2) With the agreement of the clergy person’s UM bishop and the bishop supervising the separating congregation, the clergy person could continue to serve that congregation on an interim basis, until a suitable appointment is found within the UM Church. Such clergy would have to abide by the provisions of the new denomination as long as they serve a congregation within it.
A clergy person remaining in the UM Church would continue their pension program with Wespath without interruption. Health insurance and other benefits would be provided through either the existing annual conference (if it remains UM) or through a new or different annual conference within the UM Church (if the existing annual conference separates from the UM Church).
Clergy Transferring to the Global Methodist Church or another Methodist Denomination
Clergy may elect to transfer to the GM Church or to another Methodist denomination formed under the Protocol. By default, the clergy person’s membership remains in their current annual conference (whatever that is), unless the clergy person requests a different affiliation.
If the clergy person’s annual conference votes to separate from the UM Church and align with the GM Church or another Methodist denomination, the clergy person would automatically have the same change of alignment without the need to make a request.
If the clergy person’s annual conference remains within the UM Church, the separating clergy person would have to request a transfer into the GM Church or another Methodist denomination. The GM Church is currently working on a vetting process to ensure that clergy desiring to transfer agree to the doctrinal standards and the social witness statements as required for all GM clergy. That vetting process also will include examination of background checks and other personnel information held by the UM Church’s bishop or district superintendent. Once the vetting process is completed and the clergy person approved, the transfer can take place.
If the clergy person’s local church also votes to align with the GM Church or the same other Methodist denomination as the clergy person, that clergy would normally continue to serve that congregation during the transition. There would be provision to appoint that clergy to a different congregation if necessary, but changes in appointment during the transition will be discouraged.
If the separating clergy person’s local church desires to remain United Methodist, that clergy would have two options:
1) The clergy person could be appointed to a different church in the new denomination under that church’s appointment process.
2) With the agreement of the clergy person’s new bishop and the UM bishop supervising the remaining congregation, the clergy person could continue to serve that congregation on an interim basis, until a suitable appointment is found within the new denomination. Such clergy would have to abide by the provisions of the UM Discipline as long as they serve a UM congregation.
A clergy person transferring into a new Methodist denomination would end their pension plan under the UM Church, while retaining all the benefits accumulated up to that date. There would be no loss of pension due to the transfer. The clergy would participate in a new pension plan sponsored by the new denomination from the date of transfer. Health insurance and other benefits would be provided through the new denomination, as well.
Retired Clergy
Retired clergy can choose to remain in the UM Church or transfer into a new Methodist denomination. Either way, their pension would continue under their current plan with Wespath. There would be no change in their pension. Any other benefits (e.g., supplemental health insurance) would depend upon what is offered by the annual conference of which they remain or become members.
Licensed Local Pastors
Licensed local pastors desiring to remain in the UM Church would be treated in the same way as other clergy outlined in the first section above.
Licensed local pastors desiring to move into the GM Church would be moving into ordained ministry, based on the level of education they have achieved in the UM Church. If their level of education through Course of Study or a seminary program meets the requirements for Deacons, they would be ordained a Deacon. If it meets the requirements for Elders, they would be ordained as an Elder. The GM Church is working on a vetting process that would approve LLP’s for ordination.
If a licensed local pastor does not yet meet the educational qualifications for Deacon’s orders, they would be grandfathered in as a licensed local pastor while they continue to work on meeting those requirements. Due to the lower educational requirements for Deacons in the GM Church, they should be able to meet those requirements relatively quickly.
Licensed local pastors ordained as Deacons would continue their educational progress through Course of Study or a seminary program until they meet the requirements for Elder’s orders. The GM Church would supervise the remaining educational program for clergy transferring to it.
Candidates for Ordained Ministry
Candidates for ordained ministry desiring to remain in the UM Church would continue in their current process. If their annual conference separates to align with a new Methodist denomination, they would request to remain United Methodist and be assigned to a new or different annual conference.
Candidates for ordained ministry desiring to align with the GM Church will be received in that church at the point in the process where they are. They would not have to repeat steps they have already taken. If their annual conference also aligns with the GM Church, they would continue with the same process under the new provisions of the GM Church. If their annual conference remains in the UM Church, they would be assigned to a new annual conference and resume their process with that new Board of Ministry. Given the lower educational requirements, they might be farther along in the process with the GM Church than they were previously in the UM Church.
Clergy Supply and Demand
At this point, it is only possible to speculate about the potential need for clergy in the denominations after separation. There is no hard data.
In many parts of the U.S., there may be more GM congregations than clergy interested in aligning with the GM Church, so there should be a healthy demand for clergy in the new denomination. This need for clergy should allay any fears occasioned by the fact the GM Church will not have a guaranteed appointment. During the transition, the appointment process will be very similar to what it currently is in the UM Church, but with greater required consultation with churches and prospective clergy.
The GM Church is also putting mechanisms into place to ensure that women and ethnic clergy will have fair and equitable treatment in the appointment process, even without the guaranteed appointment. In addition, any bishop deciding not to appoint a particular clergy person must give their written rationale for that decision. The GM Church hopes to make cross-conference appointments easier and more common, as well, spreading the supply of clergy where the needs are greatest. Finally, the GM Church intends to prioritize planting new churches, providing many new opportunities for clergy.
The United Methodist Church will continue to have a guaranteed appointment, at least in the short term. How the need for clergy will balance the number of clergy desiring to serve in the UM Church is unknown. Worst-case scenario, the need to appoint ordained clergy guaranteed an appointment could squeeze out licensed local pastors. Best-case scenario, the high retirement rate due to the age of current clergy could swiftly open up slots for younger clergy to serve. The impact of separation on whether congregations continue with full-time clergy or reduce to part-time is also unknown at this time.
For clergy desiring to remain in the UM Church, good sources of information include district superintendents, conference benefits officers, and Wespath. For clergy desiring to align with the Global Methodist Church, the Rev. Angela Pleasants (apleasants@wesleyancovenant.org) has the responsibility of overseeing the transition of clergy and congregations into the new denomination. Information is also available on the Wesleyan Covenant Association and Global Methodist Church websites.
Moving through a denominational separation could prove to be a chaotic experience. On the other side of that experience, however, there promises to be greater unity of belief and mission and greater certainty about what the future might hold. Leaders from all aspects of this situation are seeking to avoid harming individual clergy. All are determined to make a good-faith effort to move through this transition in a way that is respectful of clergy and celebrates God’s calling on each one’s life. It will take patience and perseverance to work through the many options and permutations to get to a better place. We are convinced that such efforts will put both the UM Church and the GM Church in a much better position to fruitfully carry out the mission with which God has entrusted them.
